Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1524 (RAJ)

Deva And Anr. v. State

2022-05-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.93/93, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC; for the offence under Section 366 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further one month’s imprisonment and; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, each of the accused-appellants were ordered to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of which, each of them were to undergo further two month imprisonment; both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 26.03.1993 at about 03:00 p.m., one Sita Bai (complainant/prosecutrix) lodged a report before the Police Station, Kurabad, District Udaipur to the effect that after Holi festival, prior to 6-7 days of lodging the report, while she departed from her village, while accompanying one Hanjaram, and reached to Kotda Mamdev, near Jagat Road to work as labourer; she did such job four about five days and one day prior to lodging of the report at about 5:00 p.m., she returned to her hut at Jagat Road, where she was staying with Hanja Ram, Nana Ram, Shanti Lal and Laxmi; after having meal, the prosecutrix went to sleep. It was further reported that in the night, the accused-appellants alongwith one Mohan Rawat r/o Mam Dev came there and make the prosecutrix awake, whereafter, they dragged her away; thereafter, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused-appellants; at about 9:00 p.m., she was dropped by the accused-appellants back to her hut. The whole incident was told by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. The whole incident was told by the prosecutrix to Laxmi and other companions, and thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station, as above. 2.1 On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case was registered against the accused-respondents for the aforementioned offences, and after due and thorough investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused- appellants for the offences under Sections 366 & 376 IPC before the learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur; the case upon being committed for trial was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur (’trial court’) for the necessary adjudication and trial, whereafter, upon due trial, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that as is apparent on the face of the record, the prosecutrix and her other companions were working as labourer through Contractor Kurichand, and the present accused-appellants though were also working under the same contractor, but the accused-appellants were later on ousted from the labour work, on count of some money dispute, which resulted into animosity between the said contractor and the accused-appellants; thus, at the instance and instigation, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused- appellants in this case. 3.1 Learned counsel further submits that even the version of the prosecutrix is believed, then also, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that while the prosecutrix was dragged out of her hut by the accused-appellants, her companions would not awake, following the alarm, if any, raised by the prosecutrix at that time. Thus, as per learned counsel, in absence thereof, the version of the prosecutrix and the prosecution story is clearly under a shadow of doubt; hence, even if any sexual intercourse took place, the same was out of consensual relationship between the parties. 3.2 Learned counsel also submits that as per the version of the prosecution, during the alleged rape, her apparels were torn and her bangles were broken, but the same were not produced in evidence, so as to prove such version beyond doubt. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time was 16-17 years; however, as per her cross-examination, her age was 18/19 years; such inconsistency, make the prosecution story all the more doubtful. 3.3 Learned counsel further submits that as per the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time was 16-17 years; however, as per her cross-examination, her age was 18/19 years; such inconsistency, make the prosecution story all the more doubtful. 3.4 Learned counsel however, submits that vide order dated 02.05.1994 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment, was suspended, and thus, they are on bail. 3.5 Learned counsel thus, submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the accused-appellants from all the charges levelled against them; but the learned trial court, without due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it and without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned judgment of conviction against the accused-appellants, which is not sustainable in the eye of law, and thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court, more particularly, when the necessary element of corroboration, so as to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime in question, is clearly not there in the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused- appellant, submits that not even an iota of inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was proved before the learned trial court, and thus, the testimony so rendered being clear and consistent was sufficient so as to convict the accused- appellants for the alleged offences. Furthermore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, amongst others, clearly connect the present accused-appellants with the alleged crime in question, and thus, the necessary element of corroboration is very much present and proved in this case. 4.1 Moreover, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of commission of the crime in question, was only between 16-17 years, which is also apparent on the face of record. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor the culprits (accused-appellants) of the crime in question, more particularly, subjecting a young girl of that age, required to be punished with severe punishment, and hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor the culprits (accused-appellants) of the crime in question, more particularly, subjecting a young girl of that age, required to be punished with severe punishment, and hence, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants vide the impugned judgment. 4.2 Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that the submission made on behalf of the accused-appellants that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment, without due appreciation of the evidence placed on record before it and lacks consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, does not merit acceptance. 4.3 Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the attempt on the part of the accused-appellants to make out a case of false implication, owing to the animosity between the aforementioned contract and the present accused-appellants, was set at naught by the learned trial court with cogent reasoning, and rightly so. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned trial court has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction against the present accused-appellants, as the same reflects a threadbare and issue-wise analysis, as made by the learned trial court, before passing the impugned judgment. 6. This Court finds that the concerned doctor, who medically examined the prosecutrix, opined that she sustained as many as ten external injuries on her person; though he could not give any definite opinion whether she was subjected to rape or not, but he opined the age of the prosecutrix to be between 16-17 years, at the relevant time. Even in absence of any definite opinion of the concerned doctor regarding the commission of rape, the accused- respondents could not prove that the several injuries as sustained by the prosecutrix, were not the result of the alleged crime in question. Thus, the said injuries clearly falsifies the claim of the accused-appellants regarding their consensual relationship with the prosecutrix. 7. The learned trial court also rightly recorded that the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, would not come in the way of believing the version of the prosecutrix (victim of rape) aged 16-17 years, more particularly, when even prima facie, there was no evidence led by the accused-appellant to falsify the clear testimony of the prosecutrix. 7. The learned trial court also rightly recorded that the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses, would not come in the way of believing the version of the prosecutrix (victim of rape) aged 16-17 years, more particularly, when even prima facie, there was no evidence led by the accused-appellant to falsify the clear testimony of the prosecutrix. Thus, this Court agrees, amongst others, with the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment that the prosecution has successfully proved its case, beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the well reasoned speaking judgment passed by the learned trial court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 9. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties are forfeited; they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the concerned Jail to undergo the remaining period of the sentence. All pending applications are disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.